Taylor v. Commonwealth
58 Va. App. 435
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Taylor was indicted by a grand jury for grand larceny after allegedly stealing more than $200 in merchandise from Sears.
- At a bench trial, the evidence supported a conviction for grand larceny; the court found guilt and scheduled sentencing.
- During sentencing, Taylor’s counsel moved to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor, acknowledging no legal basis for the reduction given verdict and statutory thresholds.
- The court declined to revisit the charge or establish a lesser included offense and noted legislative and prosecutorial roles in charging decisions.
- Taylor argued the court had inherent power to acquit for a lesser offense and rely on the evidence to support a petit larceny conviction, but the court rejected this, citing separation of powers and lack of statutory authorization.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Virginia judiciary lacks authority—constitutional, common law, or statutory—to acquit a defendant of grand larceny after a valid guilty verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had inherent power to acquit | Taylor asserts inherent discretion to acquit and downgrade charge | Commonwealth argues no such inherent power exists | No inherent power to acquit |
| Whether common law empowered a court to acquit after guilt proven | Taylor relies on common law to permit acquittal despite guilt | Common law does not authorize such judicial pardon | Common law does not authorize acquittal after guilt proven |
| Whether statutory authority permits deferral or charge downgrades | Taylor seeks statutory authority to downgrade or defer disposition | Statutes do not authorize acquittal or charge downgrades in this context | No statutory authority to grant relief |
| Relation to Moreau and Hernandez decisions | Taylor cites Moreau and Hernandez to support ongoing authority to defer or downgrade | Moreau/Hernandez do not support downward acquittal; they concern continuances, not acquittal | Moreau and Hernandez do not authorize acquittal here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27 (1916) (laying case on file; limits on judicial power to withhold enforcement)
- Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27 (1916) (discusses discretionary postponement no basis for pardon power)
- Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) (no power to free guilty defendants; separation of powers)
- Moreau v. Fuller, 276 Va. 127 (2008) (addressed continuation of case; not the issue of acquittal after guilt)
- Hernandez v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 222 (2011) (continuation/deferral context; not authority to acquit)
- Laurels of Bon Air, LLC v. Med. Facilities of Am. LIV Ltd. P'ship, 51 Va.App. 583 (2008) (separation of powers; judiciary cannot evaluate propriety of legislation)
- Satterwhite v. Commonwealth, 56 Va.App. 557 (2010) (recognizes prosecutorial discretion in charging decisions)
- Jenkins v. Mehra, 281 Va. 37 (2011) (statutory construction and prosecutorial discretion in choosing statutes)
- Morris v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 70 (2011) (common law incorporation and repugnancy to modern statutory framework)